Institute Senior Seminars

Youth, my grandfather tells me, is wasted on the young. By this he means to express more than a wistful regret for days gone by. He is convinced that the young (specifically his grandson) have no appreciation of their singular privilege. I'm pretty sure that he has very little time for an adolescent's maudlin antics.

By no stretch of the imagination can one say that four years at Harvard will leave us with the wisdom of a life time. Still, it is true that--if Harvard deserves its celebrated reputation--a graduating senior will leave these walls with a greatly expanded intellect and world-view. In fact, any fly on the wall of a typical Core section cannot help but observe that seniors and juniors seem to be getting the point in a way that the first-years do not.

We conclude that Harvard deserves its reputation. Seniors can feel comforted in the knowledge that they've learned something. First-years can expect that their hard work will pay off. So what?

It seems to me that this makes a very strong case for replacing Freshman Seminars with Senior Seminars. These would be led by senior faculty, would have the same small class size, and would be graded pass/fail. Every Harvard student would have the opportunity to study closely with a full professor--which is roughly the purpose of the current Freshman Seminars. The important question is: When?

A better world would permit a full set of Freshman Seminars and a set of Senior Seminars. The Crimson Key tour may mislead wide-eyed pre-frosh, but Harvard is a research institution, and by coming here we have committed ourselves to a much lesser degree of contact with faculty than our friends at Amherst and Williams.

It is an exceptional first-year who comes to college prepared to read and comment upon the sorts of complex, often abstruse texts which academics use. The first year here, if anything at all, teaches one how to read and understand complex and extended arguments. Most people I've talked to--even those who attended elite high schools--tell me that they experienced their greatest rate of intellectual maturation as first-years.

It is precisely because seniors are (on average) better readers and writers that they will get more out of Senior Seminars than first-years. The faculty can be sure that difficult texts will be understood; they will not need to serve as writing teachers, who must correct split infinitives and demand parallel construction. On efficiency grounds--getting the best use of the senior faculty's time--Senior Seminars are clearly preferable to Freshman Seminars.

Freshman Seminars typically address topics not covered by traditional department courses. I took one which studied a single novel, Don Quixote. Other seminars have concerned themselves with whether the earth is more likely to be destroyed by nuclear war or an asteroid collision, as well as the last spoken words of great men. One might defend the current system by arguing that first-years, more than other students, will benefit from these non-traditional classes. This argument, it seems to me, has its logic entirely backwards.

First-years should be selecting their coursework to get an idea of what they'd like to concentrate in. Though survey courses are not always the most exciting introduction to a field, they are the best way to get an idea of what an area of study is all about. Many first-years feel that they cannot take advantage of the Freshman Seminar program because they have too many other classes which they need to take. It seems deeply unfair, perverse even, to deny the seminar experience to those first-years who most acutely understand their responsibilities as students.

In contrast, seniors often have a great need for electives. The rigors of the thesis and upper-level classes make many seniors desperate for interesting, less-intense classes. For a graduating premed, a Senior Seminar might represent the last chance to take a good college-level literature course. The prospect of graduation--meaning leaving the class-room for good, or pursuing highly specialized graduate studies--would make seniors appreciative of a less structured, discussion-oriented seminar in a way that first-years are not.

The seminar program is a fairly dear resource. Therefore, it is by no means silly to think seriously about how best to use it. Seniors, who have had several years to get comfortable with college-level material and who are faced with graduation, will be far better able to appreciate what the seminars have to offer.

I do not intend this editorial as an attack on first-years. I merely contend that any senior who has not degenerated over three years must know more than first-years, not only about a given area of study, but also about how to think. The seminar format--the ability for non-specialists to learn from a distinguished scholar--is a wonderful opportunity. As it stands, Freshman Seminars are wasted upon the first-years.

Bruce L. Gottlieb can often be found discoursing on the end of the world and its relation to Spanish Literature.